The Port Authority's Role in the World Trade Center

By Richard C. Leone

Published: August 6, 2002

The debate about rebuilding on the site of the World Trade Center has taken a new turn since the design options presented two weeks ago were greeted with disappointment. State and local officials said the plans were just a starting point. But the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- which built the World Trade Center, owns the site, and has a decisive voice in what happens -- has insisted that the redevelopment of the site generate revenues comparable to those produced by the World Trade Center. Now, proposals are emerging that would remove the Port Authority and its financial requirements from the process altogether -- by trading La Guardia and Kennedy airports, which are owned by the city, to the authority in exchange for the World Trade Center site -- with redevelopment reassigned, perhaps, to new city-state agency.

There are many reasons for the effort to push the Port Authority out, but one may be the state of the agency itself. In its heyday, it was considered the most effective and professional public agency in the country. While building bridges, tunnels, and airports, Port Authority executives like Austin Tobin won virtually every fight they took on, including those with the more famous Robert Moses. The agency was a big-time operator with a long-term perspective: the original single span of the George Washington Bridge, underutilized at first, was designed not only to support the current second level, but has the strength for even a third.

It was natural for the Rockefellers to turn to the Port Authority to serve as the key player in reviving the flagging economic fortunes of downtown Manhattan in the 1960's. The authority had money, patience and expertise; it could plan ahead a dozen years as politicians could not; it didn't have to worry about next quarter's results; and it had built up a reservoir of public and media confidence in its ability to get the job done. New Jersey went along with the World Trade Center in exchange for a Port Authority takeover of what now is called the PATH system. The deal benefited both states, although neither the PATH, which loses over $150 million a year, nor the World Trade Center, which lost money for the first 10 years of its existence, was a particularly good financial fit for the authority.

In the end, though, the World Trade Center served the public purpose of reviving downtown. And while the buildings themselves generated architectural controversy, they did become global symbols of the city. Now, the events of Sept. 11 have left a void that goes beyond the empty physical space. We seem to be suffering from both a lack of imagination and a lack of confidence in the public sector's ability to follow through on the grand scale required.

The Port Authority is not what it was four decades ago. Robert Moses and Austin Tobin would seem hopelessly overbearing in the current environment, in which community engagement and transparency are necessary and desired. The special sensitivity of a site where so many died also restricts what might be done.

The character of the authority has changed, too. For decades, governors of New York and New Jersey complained about the authority's independence. Now, the governors have taken it over; the formerly professional staff has been diluted by patronage employees from both states. Today the agency is ruled by reliable political allies of the governors, former lieutenants and campaign fund-raisers. Rather than functioning as an independent force for the interests of the region, it is more often just a place where bistate interests are brokered. But the building of projects like airports, bridges, tunnels and harbors is hardly ever a result of routine politics. Elected officials are notoriously reluctant to choose sides, lead fights and see projects through.

The final plan for the World Trade Center site should not be driven by the financial requirements of any agency or the patronage needs of any political leader. It should shaped by a body independent enough to pursue our common interest in creating something lasting. The architects, engineers and construction firms that will actually rebuild downtown need a client with power, patience, professionalism, political skills and courage. The Port Authority would have to be reformed to fit that profile again -- a scenario not very likely in the current political climate. It's not that the agency is worse than other public bodies in the region; it's just that it has been remade into a routine arm of government.

Only the governors and Mayor Michael Bloomberg can change this situation. They must decide that they actually want the Port Authority -- or any new development body for the World Trade Center site -- to have enough independence and insulation from politics to rise above the ordinary and fulfill the hopes of so many.

Richard C. Leone is president of the Century Foundation and former chairman of the Port Authority.